Josef Bartels1, Rachel Rodenbach2, Katherine Ciesinski3, Robert Gramling4, Kevin Fiscella5, Ronald Epstein6. 1. University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642, USA. Electronic address: Josef_Bartels@URMC.Rochester.edu. 2. University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642, USA. Electronic address: Rachel_Rodenbach@urmc.rochester.edu. 3. Eastman School of Music, 26 Gibbs St., Rochester, NY 14604, USA. Electronic address: KCiesinski@esm.rochester.edu. 4. Center for Communication and Disparities Research, University of Rochester Department of Family Medicine, 1381 South Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA. Electronic address: Robert_Gramling@urmc.rochester.edu. 5. Center for Communication and Disparities Research, University of Rochester Department of Family Medicine, 1381 South Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA. Electronic address: Kevin_Fiscella@urmc.rochester.edu. 6. Center for Communication and Disparities Research, University of Rochester Department of Family Medicine, 1381 South Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA. Electronic address: Ronald_Epstein@urmc.rochester.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Silences in doctor-patient communication can be "connectional" and communicative, in contrast to silences that indicate awkwardness or distraction. Musical and lexical analyses can identify and characterize connectional silences in consultations between oncologists and patients. METHODS: Two medical students and a professor of voice screened all 1211 silences over 2s in length from 124 oncology office visits. We developed a "strength of connection" taxonomy and examined ten connectional silences for lexical and musical features including pitch, volume, and speaker turn-taking rhythm. RESULTS: We identified connectional silences with good reliability. Typical dialog rhythms surrounding connectional silences are characterized by relatively equal turn lengths and frequent short vocalizations. We found no pattern of volume and pitch variability around these silences. Connectional silences occurred in a wide variety of lexical contexts. CONCLUSION: Particular patterns of dialog rhythm mark connectional silences. Exploring structures of connectional silence extends our understanding of the audio-linguistic conditions that mark patient-clinician connection. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communicating with an awareness of pitch, rhythm, and silence - in addition to lexical content - can facilitate shared understanding and emotional connection.
OBJECTIVE: Silences in doctor-patient communication can be "connectional" and communicative, in contrast to silences that indicate awkwardness or distraction. Musical and lexical analyses can identify and characterize connectional silences in consultations between oncologists and patients. METHODS: Two medical students and a professor of voice screened all 1211 silences over 2s in length from 124 oncology office visits. We developed a "strength of connection" taxonomy and examined ten connectional silences for lexical and musical features including pitch, volume, and speaker turn-taking rhythm. RESULTS: We identified connectional silences with good reliability. Typical dialog rhythms surrounding connectional silences are characterized by relatively equal turn lengths and frequent short vocalizations. We found no pattern of volume and pitch variability around these silences. Connectional silences occurred in a wide variety of lexical contexts. CONCLUSION: Particular patterns of dialog rhythm mark connectional silences. Exploring structures of connectional silence extends our understanding of the audio-linguistic conditions that mark patient-clinician connection. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communicating with an awareness of pitch, rhythm, and silence - in addition to lexical content - can facilitate shared understanding and emotional connection.
Authors: Rachel A Cameron; Benjamin L Mazer; Jane M DeLuca; Supriya G Mohile; Ronald M Epstein Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Sarah L Rockwell; Cameka L Woods; Monica E Lemmon; Justin N Baker; Jennifer W Mack; Karen L Andes; Erica C Kaye Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Heather M Derry; Andrew S Epstein; Wendy G Lichtenthal; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Expert Rev Anticancer Ther Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 4.512
Authors: Annie T Chen; Aarti Swaminathan; William R Kearns; Nicole M Alberts; Emily F Law; Tonya M Palermo Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 5.428